Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Scores Legal Victory as Judge Decertifies 2011 App Store Antitrust Lawsuit
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If a company isn’t allowed to create, patent and solely own it, then what is the point of patents and copyrights?
I’m flummoxed that just because android is open that it is expected that all others follow suit.
If you own a house, do you have a monopoly over it?
Last edited:
Well that comment makes no sense just buy an android device when iOS is more or less becoming android anyway in terms of how the operating system works anyway
It’s not iOS 6 anymore
This argument about privacy and security is funny in regards to apple because I just wonder how anyone who owns an Apple product manages to purchase or use anything outside the app store if privacy and security is truly that important to them.
And maybe have a taste of why people generally don’t want to switch ecosystem in a whim, and how horrifyingly effective Apple has done to lock users down as hard as they can.
First of all. iOS is also filled with viruses, Trojans and other malware. Scamware in App Store is quite prevalent. They may be much fewer than in android but they aren’t any less deadly. I bet some of those high profile malware could break into all Apple iOS defences and steal anything they want.
Secondly, while it is relatively true that iOS is more safe than android, as long as side loading is disabled on android, they are just as secure for most users. EU will show the world how secure iOS will be with all the third party app stores available for use.
I’m not who you replied to, but UTM Virtual Machine with JIT access is my only request these days, the App Store pretty much allows everything else. There’s no reason my iPad M4 can’t run a Windows XP VM at full speed like my Mac Mini M4 can…
Those developers are making millions so it is not unreasonable for Apple to get a cut for providing access to a user base that enables them to make millions. Apple also only chargers 15% on subs after year 1, IIRC.
Apple only charges 15% for smaller developers, and when they dropped the fee down, developers pocketed the windfall; so if anyone harmed teh consume it's the small developers.
Desktop markets evolved differently and thus have a different sales model. Even at 30 or 15%, Apple has enabled developers to retain a lot more of the selling price than before the App Store and give them access to a large worldwide market while handling much of the administrative burden with selling to such a market.
Personally, I think Apple should allow sideloading and sandbox it like they do on the Mac, plus allow users to block access to data and sage patterns. That would free Apple from accusations of market control, allowing them to set terms as they want for their store and not be forced to host competing stores. I suspect most developers would stick with Apple.
If you are in the App Store Small Business Program, that $300 would give Apple a $45 cut, not $90. That leaves $270. I'm not sure where you are, but if you are a business you should be able to deduct business expenses so that $270 becomes $171 after the developer fee reduction. At 30%, the $51 in tax; netting you $120, before any depreciation of the computer you use to develop and office expenses. Where I am, that would net out to $0 owed in taxes. YMMV
Either way, the App Store is making you money while Windows is costing you money.
No sane lawyer is going to take a case where the likely damages are a few dollars and the opponent is a trillion dollar company.
Apple doesn’t have a monopoly on smartphones! There are dozens of competing smartphones that do what you want that doesn’t come with the downside of removing the option of a closed ecosystem (along with all of the privacy and security compromises that removal will bring) for the users who want a closed option.
No but they have a monopoly on iOS. And while there's "dozens of competing smartphones", there's only 2 realistic choices without being a luddite: iOS and Android.
No? I'm not sure what you mean by that. You still need to play by the rules where you live. In my case, although I can do "anything" to my house since it's mine (up to and including legally killing via to the castle doctrine), in reality I need to mow my lawn or pay someone to mow my lawn, maintain the exterior of my house, enable access for utility people to read meters, and so on and so forth. This is without living in an HOA by the way.
Given how little I make from the app store, it's actually more expensive to get involved with an accountant and try to set myself up as a business. Last time I tried, it would have wound up costing me money, and that was including the tax break I got from buying a computer.
Additionally, if I do that I'd be worried that I'd have to consider myself a trader for EU sales, further complicating the mess. In my instance, it's far easier to be a person, not a company.
How is Windows costing me money? Steam? Absolutely. But Microsoft? I haven't given Microsoft a cent in... probably a decade?
That’s like saying Honda has a monopoly on the accord. People keep repeating there are only two choice and yet here we are.
since you ask, I have a 1990 Ford Taurus and a 2023 Volvo XC60.The feature set, performance, and quality gap is the same as that between your pixel and your iPhone.
Can you point to a cellphone that will let me use 21st century conveniences like mobile banking or uber, without being tied to Apple or Google?
If you make so little then you should be at 15% rather than 30% at a minimum, since nothing I see requires a business license. I am not familiar with the EU tax laws regarding the situation you are in, I have an accountant but also a license in the EU for my business income.
In the US, you need not be a licensed business to deduct expenses related to business activities, although it is capped to income so you don't get to declare a loss.
As I understand the trader rules if you have an app on the App Store you are probably a trader by EU rules, especially if you charge for it:
The DSA defines a trader as “any natural person, or any legal person irrespective of whether privately or publicly owned, who is acting, including through any person acting in his or her name or on his or her behalf, for purposes relating to his or her trade, business, craft or profession.”
While I suspect making money would qualify you as "acting,...for purposes relating to his or her trade, business, craft or profession.", but I could be wrong.
Depending on how the EU decides to define trader, a lot of small developers could be in for a nasty surprise when they have to comply with the DSA.
Investment in computer and associated tools as a start. There is more to your costs than the commission paid.
Fairphone and the web. Not sure what apps work with it.
Apple has stated (via making it optional) that selling an app does not automatically make you a trader, as well as always stating you "may" be a trader. The way I'm interpreting it, my app - an app for a hobby I enjoy - is not related to my trade, craft, or profession. If I were to submit my account to be part of the Small Business program, or try to claim tax deductions, the EU could claim it's a business and I would be boned. But because I don't - and especially because I give the app away for free on other platforms - I am in the free and clear.
At least, that's my hope. I have no desire to entertain a cross-continent lawsuit!
But back to my initial point, if Apple would just stop with the dumb $99/year fees, I wouldn't even bother charging, and the EU trader bit would be irrelevant.
That is not apples or googles issue. I can bank and uber without a smartphone. A smartphone is a convenient form factor.
A switch to turn on or off the sandbox.
Sort of like the FBI asking for a back door into iOS and saying since Apple has the keys everyone is safe.
People who never sideload will still suffer reduced privacy/security along with iOS. You can’t “selectively” own something up.
What about vape apps? Apple will allow an app that describes types of weed but pulled all vape apps. I don’t imbibe weed myself but that’s a pretty good example. I think.
This is the problem. People want Apple to do something. Apple has expressed on every occasion, they do not want to do this. They view these products as distinctly different from each other. They have their own purposes, reasons for existence. They share many things in common, but are fundamentally different to each other. So much so to NOT make the iPhone operate more like macOS. And people still insist it should by buying more iPhones.
macOS is a MUCH smaller segment of the PC industry. It is at least 2 to 3x smaller than the iPhone is globally. The iPhone was NOT built to be an open computing platform as the Mac was and is. They are made differently and for a reason.
How you quantify it is by asking some basic questions. Could you have picked a different platform either to purchase OR develop on? Did the rules change to force you into a closed ecosystem (was it once open then they bait and switched it into a closed system?). There is no rule I am aware of that requires any computing device to be OPEN. As there are plenty of closed computing devices in the world.
Because those were the rules from the start. And both parties agreed to it. And at any time, either party could walk away from the agreement and not support/develop or work together if either so choose to. No one is forced to do anything as either party can walk away.
There are plenty of closed down ecosystems. Some you know and some you don't. They exist and are allowed to exist. So it's not as if this is a new thing. It's just for some a thing they wish didn't exist specifically for iPhones. But, that is what it is. Any there is only one company that makes an iPhone. Just like there is only one company that makes a Ferrari or a Nintendo Switch or mobile phone However you have other brands that make "their" version of a Ferrari like Lamborghini, or Porsche. Nintendo has competitors with PlayStation or Xbox. Apple has competition with Google or Samsung in the same space. So you don't have to pick Apple or Nintendo or Ferrari, and the way THEY do it. You have options. Whether you like or want them is not up to Apple to fix.
Android has more security vulnerabilities than iOS. Mainly due to its more open nature. Which is why the are trying to close it down. Windows is more in use world wide than macOS. So it is a bigger target than macOS. Not that there are no macOS vulnerabilities or malware. There are. Just not as prevalent. If iOS was more open like macOS it would be a BIG target to hack into. But it's a closed ecosystem that has one natural way in (AppStore). So to get malware in via other means is harder (not impossible) to do. While it's simply easier to do on more open systems.
Apple's locked down ecosystem never changed. It's the same as it was. They can't be held responsible for the actions taken by Google to lock down their ecosystem.
Yes, and the price of the fares tend to go up almost every year it seems. We public people have no choice however, and either pay it. OR, use another means of transportation.
Apple never locked anyone into anything. Developers chose to develop for iOS because there are customers that bought the device. The terms was 70/30 split. No complaints, and money was made by everyone. It's been closed from day one with one way into the device via the AppStore.
Agreed. However, with the choices available. If you bought an iPhone and expected it to function like an Android. You made a mistake. Should own it and then move on to a device/platform that better meets your needs. Certainly recommend making the suggestion to Apple about what would improve the product for you. However, don't expect them to do it if they don't see the benefit in doing so.